Hi! I'm a senior at Pennsbury, and I've been doing debate for four years now. My main event is Lincoln-Douglas, but I have experience in every NSDA debate event, including supplementals. I run traditional cases, but as long as its allowed under league rules, I'll judge it as fairly as I possibly can. I can handle spreading, but please be considerate towards less experienced opponents. If you end up sharing cases (and please don't feel obligated to do so if your opponent doesn't ask and you're not spreading), add me to the email chain at gabriellebamberski@gmail.com. Good luck!

I'm Riley (she/her)

I'm currently a freshman at American University, majoring in international studies. In high school I did 4 years of congress, 2 years of extemp, and 1 year of (traditional) LD.

Disclaimer: Don't worry if I'm looking down a lot. I promise I'm listening!! I just flow on paper.

tldr: signpost, don't be rude, and go 75% speed if we are online. Send speeches if you plan to spread. Otherwise, go crazy. I'll consider anything (excluding tricks) as long as it's a quality argument and you weigh it.

If you're reading this and I'm your congress judge, kudos to you! Congress is at the bottom.

General:

I don't go for tricks. I don't really understand them, and every explanation I've gotten from my circuit friends makes me dislike them more.

I'm okay with spreading, just make sure to send your speech.

Anything bigoted (racist, sexist, homophobic, etc) will end in a loss and a report to tab. Anything rude will lose you some speaks. Anything rude directed towards novices or new debaters will lose you a lot of speaks.

I flow.

LD:

I did traditional LD for one year, mostly locally, so I'm not super familiar with progressive/circuit stuff. The closest I got was the occasional t-shell. That being said, Ks, CPs, theory, etc. all have a clear structure. I should be able to follow if you execute it well.

My biggest pet peeves are new args in the 2AR, and not weighing in the 2AR. I do not consider new arguments in Please, please, please weigh.

Policy:

I've never competed in policy- I've only judged it. Good arguments are good arguments, though, and good structure is good structure. As long as you have that, I'll be able to follow.

Congress:

As a former congressional debater, I think congress paradigms should be the norm. There's so much variance in judge preferences and stylistic preferences that goes unaccounted for otherwise. Authorships should be an introduction to the issue with background. There shouldn't be any pure constructive speeches late- or even mid-round. There should be refutation anywhere you can fit it, and you should be crystalizing if your part of the last few aff/neg cycles.

Style is nice, but not without substance. Your 1 minute introduction is not worth sacrificing a point. At the end of the day, it's congressional debate. Please debate.

Your priority should be to give a speech, no matter how bad you think it will be. A mediocre speech on every bill will get you better ranks than one good speech on one bill.

A note to potential POs- I have POed. I know the rules, and I won't tank your rank for it.

I'm a recent PhD from Binghamton University in Political Science (pronouns are she/her). Research focus is in American Politics (identity and pol behavior in particular) but you can safely assume I have at least average substantive knowledge on the topic even if it isn't americanist. I'm currently working for the intelligence wing of a company focusing on the digital economy. I was an extemper, normally judge PF and LD (or parli congress), occasionally judge speech. I'm comfortable with circuit debate, but not super involved anymore.

Update for virtual nat circuit: take the spread from an 8 to a 6.5 , share your case doc, slow on theory. When you aren't sharing a doc, don't spread. If I don't catch it, it won't go on my flow.

Add me to the thread: tara.s.riggs@gmail.com

LD

- I can (and frequently do) hate your arguments but still vote you up on them. You need to have a legitimate warrant and be reasonable, but you need to win the flow and some times that means winning on greyhound racing in space or something absurd. I'm inclined tech>truth but warrants still matter when I weigh rounds.

-I've grown to really appreciate a good K. You need to be really explicit in the argument. I am familiar with the lit on feminism/identity/racism, but I am an empiricist at heart not a political theorist. The more obscure your K is, the more your explanation and depth matters. I won’t vote off of theory that’s not explained. Make it clear what the alt does, whether or not you affirm/negate the resolution, and any stances you take. If you can't explain your K, you shouldn't be reading it. I'm most familiar with identity based K's and set col.

-If we end up together and you are dead set on running a CP, don't make it a PIC. I will not evaluate it. I won't flow it. You just wasted x amount of time. PICs are inherently abusive. This is the one place I will intervene on the ballot.

-I like theory rounds.

-I also like Theory rounds.

PF

- I flow but I am more relaxed on tech>truth. I am more inclined to believe an impactful truth than blippy tech. Don't consider me tech>truth if your plan is to run spark or argue climate change/ extinction/economic collapse good.

- I need to see a strong link level debate. You NEED to materialize your links if you want to access impacts. Don't make me question the links.

- Make your impacts clear. Often times, rounds come down to impacts.

- Plans and CPs in PF are inherently against the event( and against NSDA rules). I will not flow them. You may win them, but I'm not flowing it and will not consider it in round. Strike me if this is your strategy. PF isn't Policy.

- I like K's but stock K's are lazy. Don't run a capitalism K just to run a capitalism K. If you are running K, you need to be able to explain what happens if the alt is true. Weigh whether or not you want to spend the time on the K given how short speeches are in PF.

- First summary should extend defense- but does not need to extend defense UNLESS the second rebuttal frontlined their case. In that scenario, first summary MUST extend defense. Regardless, first summary needs to extend turns if you want me to vote on them.

-I do not flow CX-anything that comes up in cross-examination that you want considered in the round needs to be mentioned in your speeches.Don't be rude in grand cx. That's my one problem with gcx. I have given low point wins because a team was rude in gcx.

Parli

-Be strategic. If GOV frames the resolution in a way that makes it impossible to debate, go for theory. If OPP let's GOV slide on something obviously egregious, run with it. I'm looking for the team that best plays the game here.

** If your strategy is to frame the debate where OPP must defend slavery, sexism, homophobia, invasion, etc. I will drop you. There has to be a reasonable limit. I'm non-interventionist until you make someone defend something truly abhorrent. It doesn't show you are a great debater, it shows you are a scuzzy person.

********Live and let debate BUT if you are openly sexist, racist, abelist,xenophobic, homophobic, or insert discriminatory adjective here you WILL lose the round.********